The Wichita Water Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 895 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE WICHITA WATER COMPANY 895
decertification proceedings.s We shall therefore dismiss these peti-
tions.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in these consolidated cases
be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
8 General Motors Corpo)ation , Buick Motors Division, 92 NLRB 240 ; Douglas Aircraft
Company, Inc, 92 NLRB 702 (to which Chairman Herzog and Member Houston dis-
sented, but by which they now consider themselves bound).
THE WICHITA WATER COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGAN-
IZATIONS , PETITIONER . Case No. 17-RCi-910 . March 22, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Cassidy , hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent all employees in the Employer's
service, or distribution , department , excluding guards , office clerical
and professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Employer asserts that the proposed unit is inappropriate unless
it includes the Employer 's pumping station employees . The parties
also disagree as to the proper classification of 15 persons in the dis-
tribution department , some of whom the Petitioner would exclude
from the unit as supervisors , and others of whom it would exclude
as clerical employees.
The Employer sells and distributes water to commercial and residen-
tial users in Wichita, Kansas . Its "production" activities occur in
93 NLRB No. 143.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its pumping station, where four engineers or operators, four main-
tenance men, and four firemen service and operate the pumps which
maintain pressure in the mains and pipes of its distribution system.
The pumping station employees, who are under a pumping-station
supervisor, are more highly paid than any of the distribution de-
partment employees, except supervisors. Although almost one-half
of those in the pumping station were once employed in the distribu-
tion department, their transfer resulted from the Employer's stand-
ard promotion policies. There is no other regular interchange be-
tween the two departments. The record shows that the employees of
the two departments have little contact with each other, save in time
of flood or other emergency, and that their work and their working
conditions are distinct.
The service department, which bears the responsibility for all the
Employer's distribution facilities, is located in two buildings about a
mile from the pumping station. Most of the approximately 75 em-
ployees in the department do maintenance and repair work on the
mains and pipes which comprise the distribution system. They work
on hydrants, valves, and meters, relocate pipes ahead of street repair
work, install pipes and meters for new customers, and inspect the
system to guard against leaks and breaks. They dig ditches, do
masonry work, and use portable pumps, compressors, and gasoline-
driven generators. The service department also includes inspectors,
meter readers, and clerical employees. Except for the clerical em-
ployees, who are excluded by agreement between the parties, service
department employees are "outside" workers, who move about from
job to job, unlike the "inside" workers at the pumping station.
There is no history of collective bargaining. The employees in the
requested unit constitute a separate, homogeneous, identifiable, de-
partmental group, having different interests and working conditions
from the pumping station employees. Accordingly, we find appro-
priate a unit composed of employees in the Employer's service
department.'
There remains for consideration the question whether 15 service
department employees should be excluded from the unit as super-
visors or office clerical employees.
There are 8 sub foremen listed on the Employer's payroll, and the
Petitioner would add to this category 2 other employees, Linnabary and
Woodhead, whose jobs are allegedly similar and who are listed as
foremen on the Employer's board in its garage. The Petitioner as-
serts that all 10 are supervisors, and must be excluded from the unit.
The Employer seeks to include all of them, claiming that they are, at
I See Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, 86 NLRB 437.
THE WICHITA WATER COMPANY 897
most, "straw-bosses" or "leadmen," lacking power to hire, fire, or
responsibly direct other employees.
The record shows that only 1 of the 10, Renteria, is not a supervisor.
Renteria does much of his work under a subforeman, and the rest of
the time he works alone. At no time does he supervise other em-
ployees within the meaning of the Act.
However, the other 9 are in charge of crews composed of 3 to 12
employees. These work crews install and repair mains, pipes, valves,
hydrants, and meters, install new service, and do all the varied tasks
incident to the operation of a water distribution system in a large
city. The record shows that these subforemen do not have the power
to hire and fire other employees, but we are satisfied that they have
the power effectively to recommend such action. Although the sub-
foremen receive general instructions for the jobs to which their
crews are assigned, it appears that they exercise independent judg-
ment in performing their duties, and in assigning tasks to and re-
sponsibly directing their crews.2 We therefore exclude these 9 from
the unit.
Four of the remaining employees whose status is disputed by the
parties are inspectors, who connect and disconnect service, install and
remove meters, inspect pipes and fixtures for leaks, investigate com-
plaints, and make reports. The Petitioner would exclude three of
them as clerical employees and the fourth as a supervisor. As the
first three do, for the most part, work closely related to that of the
other employees in the service department, and as they do only a
minor amount of clerical work, we shall include them in the unit.
The fourth, in addition, exercises clear supervisory authority over the
Employer's meter readers. He makes daily route assignments, super-
vises the activities of the meter readers, and responsibly directs them.*
in the performance of their jobs. We find that he is a supervisor,
and therefore exclude him from the unit.
Finally, there is a collector, whom the Petitioner would exclude
from the unit as a clerical employee. The collector spends most of
his time collecting overdue accounts. When not fully occupied at
this task, he works in the office assisting office clerical employees.
We think his interests are closer to those of the office clericals than
to those of the service department employes, and therefore exclude him
from the unit.3
We find that all employees in the Employer's service department
in Wichita, Kansas, excluding subforemen who have supervisory
powers, the collector, office clerical employees, professional employees,
i See Continental Oil Company, 85 NLRB 827.
The Ohio Power Company (Central Division), 86 NLRB 1181.
943732-51-58
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, and also excluding
the pumping station employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
JERRY FAIRBANKS, INC. and MOVING PICTURE PAINTERS AND SCENIC
ARTISTS, LOCAL 644, AFFILIATED WITH BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS,
DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER . Case No.
21-RC-1718. March 02, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a, hearing was held before Eugene M.
Purver, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
All parties to this proceeding are in agreement as to the composition
of the unit, namely : All scenic artists, painters, paperhangers, dec-
orators, sign writers; matte shot artists, advertising artists, title artists,
and their apprentices and assistants, but excluding set decorators,
guards, foreman scenic artists, head paint foreman, foreman painters,
foreman advertising artists, and all other supervisors. The only unit
issue raised in this case relates to the scope of the unit. The Petitioner
seeks a unit confined to employees of the Employer. The Intervenor
contends that a separate unit for employees of the Employer is inap-
propriate, and that an appropriate unit would include the employees
of all members of the Independent Television Producers Association,
of which the Employer is a member. The Employer takes no-position.
93 NLRB No. 142.